A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.

As a think tank focused on intelligent design, the Discovery Institute presumably has no need for physical laboratories—its research is mostly imagination-based. So it seemed odd to Richard Hoppe of Panda’s Thumb when he saw a video of one of the Institute’s researchers spouting all sorts of bad science from a lab setting. Although the video was datelined from the “Biologic Institute” of the Discovery Institute, it turns out that the nonsensical rant was green-screened in front of a stock image.

The Discovery Institute is a nonprofit think tank for the advancement of intelligent design theories, but it seems to spend much of its time attacking evolution via videos in which its resident scientists question all matters of, well, science. In the video, senior research scientist Ann Gauger puts the entire model of population genetics on trial.

“The biggest problem with population genetics estimates is the implicit assumption is common descent, and that similarity of [genetic] sequence implies similarity of descent, that they come from a common ancestor," she says. Later, she notes that “it’s premature to say that just because two things look alike, say chimps and humans, that they’re descended from a common ancestor."

Presumably, we are meant to let the nice scientist’s words and theories wash over us in the glow of the lab she’s sitting in… except the lighting on her person and the lighting in the lab don’t quite add up. The sequence was pretty obviously green screened, and Panda’s Thumb has the stock image of a biology lab from Shutterstock to prove it. Instant credibility! Or not.

256 Reader Comments

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. In other words, Catholic doctrine does not necessarily deny the phenomenon of evolution, but most certainly denies the mechanisms of evolution.

Atheistic evolution? Evolution is evolution. Change over time in response to external pressures. It bothers me when junk terms are created to battle unfounded faith based ideas. Why do people even bother? Religion is religion because all of its teachings are 100% faith. If religion had any facts to back up their views it wouldn't be a religion.

I don't understand the full blown hate toward these people. I get a little worked up sometimes when I disagree with someone but generally speaking I enjoy the discourse, even when it seems insane to me.

We have so many other things we could be putting our mental resources into.....

They can believe whatever they want and I don’t think many people would have an issue with them, except...

The problem is they are trying to push their pseudo-science religious program into school curriculums and thereby displace the actual science education which was supposed to be taking place. The lack of science in their ‘science’ also erodes the scientific method of evidence based conclusions which science education is supposed to instill.

Well, I know this won't be a popular comment, but quite frankly this "article" seems nothing more than attempted pandering to Ars readers, with really nothing of value to offer, or perhaps some sort of social-engineering test designed to start a flame war.

She's using a standard genetics / biology idea (IE: you can have two things that look the same, but they evolved differently, and thus don't have a common genetic ancestor.) to argue for creationism? I would think that idea would support evolutionary theory ... b/c it means things w/o a common ancestor have evolved to look similar. Likewise things can evolve to look radically different than their root ancestor.

I don't know how they take these scientific theories and twist them around to make them seem like they support creationism, b/c ... I guess I spent too much time in school learning science and not enough time in church completely turning my back on the science I learned to blindly accept some crackpot's theory out of left field that was based on nothing more than blind faith.

“it’s premature to say that just because two things look alike, say chimps and humans, that they’re descended from a common ancestor."

How typical!

Of course, anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together already knows that the chimps and humans outward appearance is not why we say they descended from a common ancestor. We have fossil records and genetic evidence to prove it. Her audience requires no such proof, and she knows it.

The fact of the matter is that we don't have "proof" -- although we do have lots of evidence. But we have even more conclusive evidence for evolution as a process. You are lumping evolution as a process with the belief that humans and chimps have a common ancestor -- please don't.

All species share a common ancestor. Chimps and Bonobos (swype pretty accurately interpreted "nymphos" the first time I tried to enter "Bonobos") are almost certainly our closest surviving relatives, based on many lines of evidence.

Or are you proposing that because their special effects sucked, that showing this lab in the background was not intended to in any way suggest that they do actual science in a lab? It's just like: "Here's a person talking. Also, apropos of nothing, here's what a science lab looks like."

I'm proposing that your indignation is over-inflated because you happen to disagree with their overall argument (and you should, because it's stupid).

I also don't believe that this lady has a real stack of studies from doctors:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEhQNE1gb0But I'm not getting my panties in a wad because I also hold the opinion that 5-Hour energy sucks. I have sense enough to know it's bullshit and don't begrudge them using visuals to for self-promotion.

Are you proposing that the organization in question should be limited in their self promotion because you don't like it (and even though you didn't fall for the lie)?

It is interesting that you use the 5-hour energy ads as an example. I find those ads highly misleading, both in their wording and their imagery. Their purpose is to deceive viewers and have them think that doctors actually believe their product is good for people, which is clearly not the case if you look into the facts of the matter at all. I'm honestly surprised they don't violate some sort of truth in advertising law or regulation.

And that cuts to the heart of what's wrong with the methods this ID think tank is using. They are trying to deceive viewers into thinking that they have a "Biologic Lab" with scientific equipment used to do real scientific research. In fact, they don't do anything of the sort and their research amounts to attempts to discredit legitimate scientific information and spread their own misinformation. It is deceptive and it is intentional. Not illegal, certainly, but unethical.

I'm sure, if you do some digging, you'll be able to find methods like this in low budget or popular media. I'm sure the history channel, TLC, or some other network has put their interview subjects in front of stock images to give them an aura of legitimacy. God knows they are selling a lot of pseudo-scientific crap on some cable channels. Personally, I think that is just as wrong.

But don't drag poor Carl Sagan into this. He wasn't being deceptive and he wasn't selling crap science.

Silly little scientists, thinking you can do science apart from the establishment and their conclusions.

Please show us how she is practicing legitimate science. I would LOVE for these clowns to actually try and refute the body of scientific data which contradicts their religion based view. Hell, I'd like to see their best minds debate the greatest minds in evolutionary biology and genetics.

Honestly, I'm more familiar with problem of pharmaceuticals using their lobbying weight to shut down research or endorsement toward anything not controlled by them (a handful of promising cancer treatments have not been research because they can use naturally occurring medicines that are impossible to monetize well). From what I hear it is the case too that ID or nonconformist scientists and philosophers of science have a heard timing getting funding to do much of their own science. I think that is why the ID movement is largely limited to philosophers of science (of various specialties) and not a lot of lab scientists proper (nobodies providing grants for that sort of thing). They mostly look at data coming out the mainstream and try to reinterpret it, for better or for worse. I like the idea of science not being totally a collectivist, conformist endeavor, but as a religious person I have not idea why people cannot just accept a multi-billion year old universe and, at least certain instances, evolution itself. It's not like theism is nullified or doesn't have very strong arguments still going for it if you acknowledge that a lot of species very likely evolved from an assortment of ancestors. I think it's dangerous to assume that science is significantly more free of human interests and interference than other fields, heck, that was part of the problem with Galileo, the Aristotelians of the time wanted to limit science to only play by the rule Aristotle established; I don't think the fact that modern academic community is now predominately materialist in their philosophy means that there is any less danger in bringing self-interest into science. I also think I'm just a sucker for free-markets and the free-market of ideas though.

I don't think anyone is obliged to fund the ID movement to do lab research, but until they get funding it's kind of silly to fault them for not having it. Now, you can fault them for other things if you like, haha.

I do not understand how people can be so dishonest in their pursuit to convince others of something, and still believe it themselves.

They don't know that they are being dishonest. They earnestly and honestly believe what they say and don't see the mental gymnastics required to make it internally consistent as dishonest. Hard to explain, but the 'belief' part kinda justifies what appears to outsiders as 'dishonesty'.

Source: Used to be one.

I am sure there are biases that exist in the brain/psyche of everyone. It just seems so odd to me that one can somehow make oneself believe while actively deceiving and not 'know' it. For instance, I think of investing and have some 'rules of thumb'. I know they are just that, rules of thumb and believe them to be generally 'good' but also know that as much as I believe that, there are times they are not as good or bad or inappropriate, especially for others.

I know I have bought into them for myself but I have not bought into them so blindly as to think I need to make you believe them while using trickery (like cherry picking data and saying see, buy stocks when the price of peaches is below 4 dollars a bushel or somesuch). I know once I even think like that, I have stepped off the deep end into deception and should, in theory, be thinking to myself that 'hmmm, my peaches theory, uh, maybe I should stfu about it'.

Honestly, I'm more familiar with problem of pharmaceuticals using their lobbying weight to shut down research or endorsement toward anything not controlled by them (a handful of promising cancer treatments have not been research because they can use naturally occurring medicines that are impossible to monetize well).

Okay, two claims need substantiation here. (1) that there are promising cancer treatments that are going unstudied, and (2) that these treatments are somehow being blocked by Big Pharma.

My understanding is that there is a lot of not-for-profit and government money that goes into cancer research, and I *know* that there are a lot of smart, selfless people doing this research, so I have a hard time crediting either of these claims. This sounds like the "oil industry suppressing water-powered cars" type of conspiracy talk.

I don't think anyone is obliged to fund the ID movement to do lab research, but until they get funding it's kind of silly to fault them for not having it. Now, you can fault them for other things if you like, haha.

I do not understand how people can be so dishonest in their pursuit to convince others of something, and still believe it themselves.

They don't know that they are being dishonest. They earnestly and honestly believe what they say and don't see the mental gymnastics required to make it internally consistent as dishonest. Hard to explain, but the 'belief' part kinda justifies what appears to outsiders as 'dishonesty'.

Source: Used to be one.

I am sure there are biases that exist in the brain/psyche of everyone. It just seems so odd to me that one can somehow make oneself believe while actively deceiving and not 'know' it. For instance, I think of investing and have some 'rules of thumb'. I know they are just that, rules of thumb and believe them to be generally 'good' but also know that as much as I believe that, there are times they are not as good or bad or inappropriate, especially for others.

I know I have bought into them for myself but I have not bought into them so blindly as to think I need to make you believe them while using trickery (like cherry picking data and saying see, buy stocks when the price of peaches is below 4 dollars a bushel or somesuch). I know once I even think like that, I have stepped off the deep end into deception and should, in theory, be thinking to myself that 'hmmm, my peaches theory, uh, maybe I should stfu about it'.

So that 'hmmmm' moment is disconnected for these people?

Cognitive dissonance coupled with survivor bias is a powerful thing, and this is where social scientists can really help out our friends in the harder sciences (disclaimer: poli sci major in school).

The link below is a great example of it happening on Wall Street, where people like to often take credit for things beyond their control, and attribute random chance to actual skill. What you're seeing with intelligent design is something similar, the human mind rationalizing forces outside of it's control in order to make those forces understandable and less threatening. The survivor bias is that when someone succeeds by luck, and others fail, outside observers tend to view the survivor as more skilled in general, even if they only survived by dumb luck.

With intelligent design groups, how this works is that those with a higher level of self-deception, and thus more self confidence (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 43982.html) are able to respond more readily to critics of their system. This makes them more valuable to less confident believers as their survival (beating the critics or at least disarming them) reinforces the less confident believers universe, and thus provides structure and comfort.

Its actually really interesting stuff. If you ever get a chance take a look at Anderson's "Imagined Communities" which studies nationalism myths and the efforts that groups take to build and reinforce them. The most interesting conclusion is that the closer two groups are together, the more likely you'll see incredible effort into the construction of mental artifacts to create the "other."

Silly little scientists, thinking you can do science apart from the establishment and their conclusions.

Please show us how she is practicing legitimate science. I would LOVE for these clowns to actually try and refute the body of scientific data which contradicts their religion based view. Hell, I'd like to see their best minds debate the greatest minds in evolutionary biology and genetics.

Honestly, I'm more familiar with problem of pharmaceuticals using their lobbying weight to shut down research or endorsement toward anything not controlled by them (a handful of promising cancer treatments have not been research because they can use naturally occurring medicines that are impossible to monetize well). From what I hear it is the case too that ID or nonconformist scientists and philosophers of science have a heard timing getting funding to do much of their own science. I think that is why the ID movement is largely limited to philosophers of science (of various specialties) and not a lot of lab scientists proper (nobodies providing grants for that sort of thing). They mostly look at data coming out the mainstream and try to reinterpret it, for better or for worse. I like the idea of science not being totally a collectivist, conformist endeavor, but as a religious person I have not idea why people cannot just accept a multi-billion year old universe and, at least certain instances, evolution itself. It's not like theism is nullified or doesn't have very strong arguments still going for it if you acknowledge that a lot of species very likely evolved from an assortment of ancestors. I think it's dangerous to assume that science is significantly more free of human interests and interference than other fields, heck, that was part of the problem with Galileo, the Aristotelians of the time wanted to limit science to only play by the rule Aristotle established; I don't think the fact that modern academic community is now predominately materialist in their philosophy means that there is any less danger in bringing self-interest into science. I also think I'm just a sucker for free-markets and the free-market of ideas though.

I don't think anyone is obliged to fund the ID movement to do lab research, but until they get funding it's kind of silly to fault them for not having it. Now, you can fault them for other things if you like, haha.

They have plenty of funding. their followers donate via the church. If all they are doing in reinterpreting then they aren't practicing science.

This applies to situations like this in general, but this instance has me wondering. <snip>They even deceive people that the bible was written by the apostles, and not by bishops at the Council of Nicaea. Organized religion is the filthiest business that relies on mass deception and fabrication in order to turn people into slaves from the moment they're born.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses a stock photo of a MUCH more impressive science lab, so they have much more credibility than the Creation Institute. In fact, I use a stock photo of the LHC as a background when I make pseudo-scientific claims, you would think that the Creation Institute, which has much more funding, would be able to at least match my level of credibility.

Now that I think about it, everyone saying this isn't any different from when real science programs use green screen is correct. Real science programs use green screen effects to show things they can't actually do, like fly in an interstellar spaceship, or walk among dinosaurs.

This "biologist" is using the green screen effect for the same reason,.to show things she can't actually do. Like science...

Anytime people argue about the intelligence or morals of people of religion vs those of scrience I liek to bring this up:

% of the US population that claims to be Christian: 78%. (about 20% of those are "unafiliated" or non-practicing christians but continue to believe in the basics and the existance of both god and Christ. (source http://religions.pewforum.org/reports )

Christians, who preacht eh 10 commandments, do unto others and all, have a HIGHER percentage of their base population in FEDERAL prison (aka, you did really bad shit, not just got caught smoking pot or writing bad checks), and Aetheists have less than 1 80th of their respective population.

In fact, digging into the big list of all the religions, and correlating them to their makup in the base population, the only religions other than not having one that have smaller percentages of their population in prison vs their makup of that same population are Mormon and Hindu. Jews are a dead tie with the exact same percent in federal prison as walk the population. Jahovas Whitness have double their percentage in prison. Muslims almost 10X, American indians 10X, Rasta about double, Catholics about 80% higher than norm. Evangelical is where the bulk is though, about 3:1 more of them in prison vs their percentage of the general populous, and they're the ones that are supposedly the mouse devout?

This equally correlates with intelligence. Smarter people are less likely religeous. Smarter people are less likely to comit crime. This however does NOT corelate to financial status or demographics. Poor people do have a higher chance of being in prison than middle class, but actually the rich have a disproportionately high risk of imprisonment themselves, and race also does not directly correlate to prison population as we all know. In fact, the only thing that corelates is the more strictly religeous you are (mormon the sole exception), the more likely you are to be in federal prison. I think that this directly correltes with either the more gullable you are the more likely you are to be both a criminal and religeous, or perhaps its the parrern of willfully lying to yourself about what you believe just to remain in certain social circles that breeds the potential for crime. Of course, it could just be that the more analytical your mind (and thus the more prone to shed faith), the more likely you are to comit crime and NOT GET CAUGHT?

Me, I believe there's something out there. I believe if there is something worthy of us worshiping as a god there certainly as hell isn;t just one of them, but until it shows it's face or whatever it has to be worshiped, why waste the energy on it, we have so much more to learn. I believe the laws of the universe are just that, laws that are, and anything that exists inside of it, whether there are extradimensional spaces outside of it or not, follows its rules, and thus can't simply have the ability to create from nothing. Maybe the whole thing was put in motion by some superbeing several trillion years ago, but in that case it;s just an absentee landlord, and given the scale of the universe, it;s highly unlikely earth even shows up as a blip to it, let alone something to be personally involved with the primordial pests that inhabit it. Anso, it's not possible to have an omnipotent being that planned life love and everything, that also allows rape, murder, and abuse of children that is worthy of our worship even if it does exist. But, that's just me, and these are just statistics, it has no direct bearing on the choices you make. only you can choose to be a better person, and your choice of religeon should have no bearing in that.

A Creationist's Viewpoint - the green screen thing was a dumb idea. It does nothing to help their case and undermines the message. It is interesting that such a tech savvy group here would assume that the person speaking in the video is the same person who applied the fake background. More likely some techy intern who wanted to make it look cool and flashy. Still a dumb idea and it was approved and released by the institute.

-On IDThe motive for this research is clearly to support the evangelical creationist viewpoint. ID is just the beginning argument to support creationism and to test the theory of evolution .

The argument is one of Logic.

Improvement vs Deterioration - We can observe many examples of improvement and find the cause to be creativity, thoughtful leadership, design.. We design solutions to make things better. We are designers, innovators, creators.

We can observe examples of deterioration and find that it is often caused by chaos, neglect. Our creations tend to fall apart over time if they are not maintained properly (buildings, cars, computer systems, governments, healthcare systems).

The entire premise of evolution is based on the idea that Improvement, organization, structure... can come to exist in an environment of chaos and neglect.

If the Mars Rover found a collection of stones assembled in a rectangle that looked like the ruins of a small building it would be front page headlines "Evidence of Life on Mars". Yet the complexity of a single tree leaf and the process of photosynthesis which we cannot replicate in a lab using a pile of dirt is not considered possible evidence of design but explained by the product of small improvements over a long period of time in an environment of chaos and neglect.

I don't endorse this particular group however I do encourage the testing of long held theories using a scientific method.

Or are you proposing that because their special effects sucked, that showing this lab in the background was not intended to in any way suggest that they do actual science in a lab? It's just like: "Here's a person talking. Also, apropos of nothing, here's what a science lab looks like."

I'm proposing that your indignation is over-inflated because you happen to disagree with their overall argument (and you should, because it's stupid).

I also don't believe that this lady has a real stack of studies from doctors:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEhQNE1gb0But I'm not getting my panties in a wad because I also hold the opinion that 5-Hour energy sucks. I have sense enough to know it's bullshit and don't begrudge them using visuals to for self-promotion.

Are you proposing that the organization in question should be limited in their self promotion because you don't like it (and even though you didn't fall for the lie)?

It is interesting that you use the 5-hour energy ads as an example. I find those ads highly misleading, both in their wording and their imagery. Their purpose is to deceive viewers and have them think that doctors actually believe their product is good for people, which is clearly not the case if you look into the facts of the matter at all. I'm honestly surprised they don't violate some sort of truth in advertising law or regulation.

And that cuts to the heart of what's wrong with the methods this ID think tank is using. They are trying to deceive viewers into thinking that they have a "Biologic Lab" with scientific equipment used to do real scientific research. In fact, they don't do anything of the sort and their research amounts to attempts to discredit legitimate scientific information and spread their own misinformation. It is deceptive and it is intentional. Not illegal, certainly, but unethical.

I'm sure, if you do some digging, you'll be able to find methods like this in low budget or popular media. I'm sure the history channel, TLC, or some other network has put their interview subjects in front of stock images to give them an aura of legitimacy. God knows they are selling a lot of pseudo-scientific crap on some cable channels. Personally, I think that is just as wrong.

But don't drag poor Carl Sagan into this. He wasn't being deceptive and he wasn't selling crap science.

There have been sociological studies that proved if you have a person standing around doing something in a lab coat and/or holding a clipboard, then folks will think they're doing very important work.

That's why on those in-faux-mercials, they always have some guy wearing a lab coat or dr's smock saying how great the product is (even though they disclaim right below it that this guy isn't really a doctor). Likewise, I love it when they say "studies show..." and then they have a quick snippet of a guy in a lab coat looking at something (like a caged animal), looking very concerned, then looking down at his clipboard as if thinking things over real hard.

People are easy to manipulate, b/c we have default programming in us that others can prey upon. When you know how you're being taken advantage of, though, it's easy to thwart being taken advantage of.

I find a lot of comments a little saddening. Many who profess to adhere to the scientific method seem to ignore the same science when it doesn't conform to their world view. This notion that ID theorist have to have some special or exclusive laboratories is also kind of an odd notion. If anyone questions the practical application of design theory as used in empirical science, then all one needs to do is go to Park Center at MIT where design theory is now being used in the field of systems biology. It seems when we view the cell as a complex engineered systems ad use the same tools and protocols for these same systems (which can include the same protocol we use on space shuttles and complex electrical systems) we seem to get great results.

In fact reveres engineering the cell, and the information within (as requiring the aid of design engineers and not just biologist) is not as new as many might think.

As for someone who commented that the fossil record provides evidence of human and chimp common ancestry, nothing could be further from the truth. This paradigme is filled with holes, gaps and inconsistent data. As for genetic evidence, the 98.3% figure is very misleading, in that it only counts SNP's/ single nucleotide polymorphism. We now know that the (overall) similarity between humans and chimps when all factors are included is around 70%.

‪Human body‬From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The draft sequence of the common chimpanzee genome published in the summer 2005 showed the regions that are similar enough to be aligned with one another account for 2400 million of the human genome’s 3164.7 million bases[19] – that is, 75.8% of the genome. This 75.8% of the human genome is 1.23% different from the chimpanzee genome in single nucleotide polymorphisms[19] (changes of single DNA “letters” in the genome). Another type of difference, called indels (insertions/deletions) account for another ~3 % difference between the alignable sequences.[19] In addition, variation in copy number of large segments (> 20 kb) of similar DNA sequence provides a further 2.7% difference between the two species.[20] Hence the total similarity of the genomes could be as low as about 70%.

A Creationist's Viewpoint - the green screen thing was a dumb idea. It does nothing to help their case and undermines the message. It is interesting that such a tech savvy group here would assume that the person speaking in the video is the same person who applied the fake background.

Actually we don't think that. We just don't think greenscreening would have been used if they had an actual lab to film in.

Quote:

-On IDThe motive for this research is clearly to support the evangelical creationist viewpoint. ID is just the beginning argument to support creationism and to test the theory of evolution .

Creationism has had more than 150 years to "test" evolution. Real science has been testing evolution for that long. Guess what? Evolution passes and Creationism fails. That's what a century and a half of testing both ideas has led us to conclude.

Quote:

Improvement vs Deterioration - We can observe many examples of improvement and find the cause to be creativity, thoughtful leadership, design.. We design solutions to make things better. We are designers, innovators, creators.

We can observe examples of deterioration and find that it is often caused by chaos, neglect. Our creations tend to fall apart over time if they are not maintained properly (buildings, cars, computer systems, governments, healthcare systems).

The entire premise of evolution is based on the idea that Improvement, organization, structure... can come to exist in an environment of chaos and neglect.

Random mutation is a generative, creative force. It creates greater genetic diversity. Selection is a process that culls what doesn't work and promotes what does work. It is not random, but determined by physical constraints. Just as pebbles in a river bed sort by size when the current flows a certain way. It's the same thing that happens when you sieve material through differently-sized screens. So evolution involves processes that are both creative and selective; it generates variety and sorts accordingly. All this happens without any intervention from us or any recognizable "designers." The system itself could be considered intelligent, but it doesn't require any mind to operate it. Just interactions between basic physics and chemistry that happen naturally.

Quote:

I don't endorse this particular group however I do encourage the testing of long held theories using a scientific method.

The US courts have declared Intelligent(sic) Design a religious argument and is basically creationism 2.0. Which in turn violates the US Constitution. This was done in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688).

Here are some decisions from Judge Jones...

ID is religious in nature.Evidence presented at trial is nothing less than progeny of creationismThat ID is not a scientific theory.That some of the Dover School Board supporting ID had selective memories and out right lies under oath.And much more.

Any school board looking to intentionally bring ID into a science class is looking to intentionally lose its budget to a lost case. Not to mention to doing a diservice to its students.

Baron von Robber, judges are not qualified to determine what is or isn't science. This is beyond their pay grade. In fact the only other time I can recall a theory being decided and protected by the law is when Stalin outlawed the teaching of anything but Lysenkoism, and like neo Darwinism, it set them back. Even other evolutionary biologist like evo devo Stuart Newman who still believes in evolution, yet is honest enough to admit the theory is limited and insufficient as a theoretical frame work, have also condemned the Dover trial and feel the public was given un enlightened and in correct information. (See part 4 "Will the real theory of evolution Please Stand Up?" Google it. ID will be decided through the peer review process as all other theories are decided, and it is going through that as we speak. In spite of the disinformation out there ID theorist do get there work published in peer review, and the number of articles grows each year. The late Philip Skell of the National Academy of Sciences along with a thousand more recent additional scientist from major universities, including foreign academies and atheist and agnostics alike supported the Discovery Institutes dissentfromdarwin list as co signatories. Here is just a short list of ID peer review articles. I also included a couple from non ID theorist who have spoken favorably about ID in there own articles......

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,”Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” 42nd South Eastern Symposium on System Theory, pp. 290-297 (March, 2010).

“The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342

Furthermore many of the arguments made by the science advisors for the plaintiff in defending the neo Darwinian synthesis have subsequently been refuted by science. One example which was often used by Kenneth Miller who argued against ID is as follows.........“Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily" Kenneth Miller.

He turned out to be wrong, and ID theorist who predicted the demise of the junk DNA paradigme years ago were right. Again this junk DNA paradigm was dealt the death blow just last october and confirmed by multiple independent studies released by ENCODE. E.g below....... Science 7 September 2012:

Vol. 337 no. 6099 pp. 1159-1161 DOI: 10.1126/science.337.6099.1159 • NEWS & ANALYSISGENOMICSENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA . Elizabeth PennisiThis week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes. end

Miller also tried to offer refutation against Michael Behes theory of irreducible complexity which was accepted as evidence by Jones. In this argument Miller stated as a fact that the bacterial flagellum could easily be explained though co-option starting with the T3SS as a precursor to the bacterial flagellum. If right, Miller would have debunked Behe. The Judge believed Miller was right and accepted this argument into evidence. Guess what? Miller was wrong. In fact all evidence supports the BF actually being the precursor to the T3SS and this in know way refuted Behes claim. Again Miller had it backwards. We dont know how a BF could evolve into a T3SS, but we do know that the BF is older and therefore incapable of being descendant to the T3SS.

"Those who support the hypothesis that the T3SS evolved from flagella cite evidence that Eukaryotes evolved after Prokaryotes. Thus, the need for motility would have caused selection for the development of flagella before an injectisome.[20] However this suggestion can be seen as ‘reductive evolution,’ and receives no topological support from the phylogenetic trees."Source.....Saier, M "Evolution of bacterial type III protein secretion systems". Trends in Microbiology Gophna U, Ron EZ, Graur D . "Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer events

Below are peer review articles of those who still believe macro evolution, yet again are honest enough to admit the modern synthesis is washed up and again, is no longer a viable theoretical framework.

The new biology: beyond the Modern SynthesisMichael R Rose1* and Todd H Oakley2

The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century.

Genetics and Molecular Biolog Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesisEva JablonkaI; Marion J. LambIIABSTRACTThis paper presents some of the recent challenges to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can be inherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources of hereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, the mechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.

AbstractIn this paper, it is argued that differences in how one relates the genome to its surrounding contexts leads to diverse interpretations of the term epigenetics. Three different approaches are considered, ranging from gene-centrism, over gene-regulation, to dynamic systems approaches. Although epigenetics receives its widest interpretation in a systems approach, a paradigmatic shift has taken place in biology from the abandonment of a gene-centric position on to the present. The epistemological and ontological consequences of this shift are made explicit.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses a stock photo of a MUCH more impressive science lab, so they have much more credibility than the Creation Institute. In fact, I use a stock photo of the LHC as a background when I make pseudo-scientific claims, you would think that the Creation Institute, which has much more funding, would be able to at least match my level of credibility.

Baron von Robber, judges are not qualified to determine what is or isn't science. This is beyond their pay grade. In fact the only other time I can recall a theory being decided and protected by the law is when Stalin outlawed the teaching of anything but Lysenkoism, and like neo Darwinism, it set them back.

Stalin? Was Hitler unavailable for a quote?

Evolution is science, pure and simple. That doesn't mean the current theory is correct in every detail, but it is still a product of the process of science, and it is sufficiently uncontroversial among scientists that suitable for teaching in the science classroom.

Intelligent Design is a search and replace of Creationism, with the "who is the creator" question conveniently set aside in an attempt to circumvent that pesky Constitution thingy. A judge doesn't need much more than a pulse to see through that, so I doubt this was a difficult ruling to get correct.

All the rest of your post is a typical, disingenuous, bullshit attempt to pretend there is a fundamental controversy where there is none.

Baron von Robber, judges are not qualified to determine what is or isn't science.

For the purposes of deciding whether it's constitutional for religious ideas to be taught in school, they can be charged with making that call. It helps that the evidence for ID's lack of scientific merit was presented by both the plaintiff AND the defense in the form of Michael Behe, who gave a remarkable display of anti-science when he dismissed stacks and stacks of studies he hadn't even read. You can see this in action here, starting at the 1h14m mark, or read the court transcripts [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html#day12pm54]here[/url]. Also in that video (around 1h28m) you can see the bones in ID's closet being exposed when Paul Nelson, one of their leading lights, had let slip in a Christian magazine interview that they didn't have anything like a coherent theory of ID. That was after ID had already been pushed for schools, less than a year before the Kitzmiller case went to court. The religious nature of ID and it's purpose was made clear in the same case where the school board members were caught out admitting that they wanted it in the school for religious reasons. In Dover, the anti-science and purely sectarian nature of ID was laid bare for all to see, under oath.

Quote:

The late Philip Skell of the National Academy of Sciences along with a thousand more recent additional scientist from major universities, including foreign academies and atheist and agnostics alike supported the Discovery Institutes dissentfromdarwin list as co signatories.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

...Charles Darwin himself described natural selection as being "the main but not exclusive means of modification" of species.[20] The modern theory of evolution includes natural selection and genetic drift as mechanisms, and does not conclude that "the ability of random mutation and natural selection" accounts "for the complexity of life." Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch comment on the ambiguity of the statement and its use in the original advertisement:

Quote:

Such a statement could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection, when other mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow are being actively debated. To the layman, however, the ad gives the distinct impression that the 100 scientists question evolution itself.[3]

Skip Evans, also of the National Center for Science Education, suggests that this confusion has in fact been carefully engineered.[11]...The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[11][48] It wrote to all of them asking whether they thought living things shared common ancestors and whether humans and apes shared common ancestors. According to Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, a few of the signatories replied saying that they did accept these principles but did not think that natural selection could explain the origins of life. However, the replies ceased when, according to Scott, the Discovery Institute found out and advised signatories not to respond. She concluded from this that "at least some of the more knowledgeable scientists did not interpret this statement the way that it was intended [by the Discovery Institute] to be interpreted by the general public."[39]For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, "I signed it in irritation", and said that evolutionary biologists were being unfair in suppressing competing ideas. He said that "They deserve to be prodded, as it were. It was my way of thumbing my nose at them", but was unconvinced by intelligent design and concluded "From my point of view, it's a plague on both your houses".[12]At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis". "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it. ... When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best. ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."[49]...The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized,[1][12] with many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields of academia, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology.[37]In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999.[38] Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times.[12] Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community.[21] Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[22]The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.[11][12]...Critics have also noted that the wording and advertising of the original statement was, and remains, misleading,[11] and that a review of the signatories suggested many doubt evolution due to religious, rather than scientific beliefs.[12] Robert T. Pennock notes that rather than being a "broad dissent", the statement's wording is "very narrow, omitting any mention of the evolutionary thesis of common descent, human evolution or any of the elements of evolutionary theory except for the Darwinian mechanism, and even that was mentioned in a very limited and rather vague manner." He concludes that it is not in fact a "radical statement".[39]...Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch say the Discovery Institute deliberately misrepresents the institutional affiliations of signatories of the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. The institutions appearing in the list are the result of a conscious choice by the Discovery Institute to only present the most prestigious affiliations available for an individual. For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading.[1]

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position.[1]

Visitors at prestigious institutions will have that affiliation listed, not their more humble home institutions. For example, Bernard d'Abrera, a writer and publisher of books on butterflies, appears on the list as "Visiting Scholar, Department of Entomology British Museum (Natural History)", in spite of the fact that this museum had become independent of the British Museum three decades previously and had formally changed its name to the Natural History Museum almost a decade before the petition. d'Abrera's primary affiliation is with his publishing company, Hill House Publishers. d'Abrera does not have a PhD either, nor any formal scientific qualification (his undergraduate degree was a double major in History & Philosophy of Science, and History), although creationists often call him "Dr. d'Abrera".[citation needed] The Discovery Institute currently recruits people with PhDs to sign the Dissent petition.[43]

So most of the signatories have no expertise in evolution or biology, many of them are not even scientists, and of those that ARE biological scientists we know of several that say they were misled and absolutely do NOT agree with the petition as you're using it. Can you admit that you are being taken in, and that this petition is nothing more than a deceptive publicity stunt that doesn't at all represent the level of scientific support for ID or dissent from mainstream evolutionary theory?

Quote:

ID will be decided through the peer review process as all other theories are decided, and it is going through that as we speak. In spite of the disinformation out there ID theorist do get there work published in peer review, and the number of articles grows each year.Wells, Jonathan. 2005. Do centrioles generate a polar ejection force? Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98: 37-62.

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Mutagenesis in Physalis pubescens L. ssp. floridana: Some further research on Dollo’s Law and the Law of Recurrent Variation,”Floriculture and Ornamental Biotechnology, 1-21 (2010).

Nope. But I'd better be careful saying "nope" like that, I wouldn't want to get sued! You know, because real scientists sue people who disagree with them.

Quote:

Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” 42nd South Eastern Symposium on System Theory, pp. 290-297 (March, 2010).

See the response to the Wells paper. Intelligent Design has had more than 20 years and millions of dollars to carry out its research program. The problem is that it doesn't have a research program, as the utter dearth of papers published in legit journals proves (even if the dearth of papers published in their own ID journals wasn't enough). And it doesn't have a research program because there is no science to it. If it were really a useful idea, if it were really a revolutionary paradigm shift that would cause us to re-examine everything in a new light, and if it really worked, there would have been an explosion of research. There hasn't even been a firecracker of research because everything put forward by IDists is trivially easy to tear apart. They have no substance of their own, they are almost entirely just attacks on evolution (and almost entirely OLD attacks that were debunked decades ago). What little they make in the way of positive claims, like saying things are "irreducibly complex and can't have evolved" or "complex specified information is discernible," have been destroyed under the lightest scrutiny. You can waste time and money on any pursuit you like, but you only get results if there's something there to work with. Decades of time and millions of dollars have been wasted on ID and we've gotten nothing out of it but drafts of model legislation to try and do an end-run around science to go directly to the public.

Quote:

Furthermore many of the arguments made by the science advisors for the plaintiff in defending the neo Darwinian synthesis have subsequently been refuted by science. One example which was often used by Kenneth Miller who argued against ID is as follows.........“Intelligent design cannot explain the presence of a nonfunctional pseudogene, unless it is willing to allow that the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, however, can explain them easily" Kenneth Miller.

He turned out to be wrong, and ID theorist who predicted the demise of the junk DNA paradigme years ago were right. Again this junk DNA paradigm was dealt the death blow just last october and confirmed by multiple independent studies released by ENCODE.

Miller also tried to offer refutation against Michael Behes theory of irreducible complexity which was accepted as evidence by Jones. In this argument Miller stated as a fact that the bacterial flagellum could easily be explained though co-option starting with the T3SS as a precursor to the bacterial flagellum. If right, Miller would have debunked Behe. The Judge believed Miller was right and accepted this argument into evidence. Guess what? Miller was wrong. In fact all evidence supports the BF actually being the precursor to the T3SS and this in know way refuted Behes claim. Again Miller had it backwards. We dont know how a BF could evolve into a T3SS, but we do know that the BF is older and therefore incapable of being descendant to the T3SS. "Those who support the hypothesis that the T3SS evolved from flagella cite evidence that Eukaryotes evolved after Prokaryotes. Thus, the need for motility would have caused selection for the development of flagella before an injectisome.[20] However this suggestion can be seen as ‘reductive evolution,’ and receives no topological support from the phylogenetic trees."Source.....Saier, M "Evolution of bacterial type III protein secretion systems". Trends in Microbiology Gophna U, Ron EZ, Graur D . "Bacterial type III secretion systems are ancient and evolved by multiple horizontal-transfer eventsPUBMED(The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems)

You know, the very next sentence in Wikipedia states: "Thus, the hypothesis that the two structures derived from a common ancestor accounts for the protein homology between the two structures, as well as their functional diversity.[21]" In other words, they are BOTH the product of evolution and the genetic evidence for this is clear. It does not support an irreducibly complex flagellum. Quite frankly it doesn't matter if the flagellum evolved from the T3SS or vice-versa, since both are examples of a "complex structure arises by exaptation, the recruitment of elements that evolved initially for other functions in other cellular structures." Miller's argument was not that the flagellum definitely evolved from a T3SS, but that "irreducibly complex" structures arise through evolution, period. Behe's argument is that they can't, and subsequent research has shown him wrong even about the flagellum. Miller's mousetrap analogy works here too: take parts away from an "irreducibly complex" mousetrap and you can still have a working mousetrap, along with other possible devices that have different functions. Evolution works the same way. The picture around the flagellum Behe likes and the TS33 indicates that both are the product of evolutionary tinkering on a common ancestral structure that had a different function from either of them: not a flagellum, and not a syringe. It formerly did not have the "function" of being a "motor."

And I've already dedicated enough time to show that your use of citations is weak and your ability to successfully represent scientific publications or opinions is lacking. I'm not going to waste the time going through your next list of papers that once again don't say what you think they do nor support anything to do with Intelligent Design.

On IDThe motive for this research is clearly to support the evangelical creationist viewpoint. ID is just the beginning argument to support creationism and to test the theory of evolution .

Creationism has had more than 150 years to "test" evolution. Real science has been testing evolution for that long. Guess what? Evolution passes and Creationism fails. That's what a century and a half of testing both ideas has led us to conclude.

So that is the time limit? 150 years and then we take a vote and accept it as fact? The case for Evolution has not been static for 150 years and it is also not without controversy. Science has not determined the final answer on everything... if that was so we would not be researching new things today. The argument for intelligent design is really the creationisms acknowledgment that science does have value and that we can move beyond the "just believe" approach.

Quote:

Quote:

Improvement vs Deterioration - We can observe many examples of improvement and find the cause to be creativity, thoughtful leadership, design.. We design solutions to make things better. We are designers, innovators, creators.

We can observe examples of deterioration and find that it is often caused by chaos, neglect. Our creations tend to fall apart over time if they are not maintained properly (buildings, cars, computer systems, governments, healthcare systems).

The entire premise of evolution is based on the idea that Improvement, organization, structure... can come to exist in an environment of chaos and neglect.

Random mutation is a generative, creative force. It creates greater genetic diversity. Selection is a process that culls what doesn't work and promotes what does work. It is not random, but determined by physical constraints. Just as pebbles in a river bed sort by size when the current flows a certain way. It's the same thing that happens when you sieve material through differently-sized screens. So evolution involves processes that are both creative and selective; it generates variety and sorts accordingly. All this happens without any intervention from us or any recognizable "designers." The system itself could be considered intelligent, but it doesn't require any mind to operate it. Just interactions between basic physics and chemistry that happen naturally.

So Random Mutation.... is not random? its creative because physics removes all of the bad mutations?

Similarly and engineer is creative and must work within the laws of physics and the success of their products is influenced by the environment "selecting" it. Example Apple iPad = success while Apple Newton = failure... influenced by the which one the the consumer population selected. Now if we observed these products with absolutely no knowledge of human existance, what facts would be used to determine that it was designed by an engineer and not evolved by random combinations of metal, silicon and plastic?

Quote:

Quote:

I don't endorse this particular group however I do encourage the testing of long held theories using a scientific method.

So how do you apply the scientific method to God?

I'm not suggesting applying the scientific method to God but to nature just as an Evolutionist would.

Consider cancer, the product of random cell mutation... it is distructive not creative, yet you may say this is natural selection at work... yet cancer cases are increasing, not decreasing... so you would argue that over 1 mil years natural selection would succeed ... how do you test that once let alone in a repeatable way? Is that not faith that given enough time anything can happen?Yet we combat cancer with the study of each variant and design specific ways to eliminate it... Is the cure for cancer evolution? or intelligent design?

How would Monsanto defend their rights to their genetically engeneered seeds in court? Sure they bring out the patents, samples and lab research. Now if the judge rejects the existance of genetic engeneering technology and the legitimacy of the company... then how could it be proven?

So that is the time limit? 150 years and then we take a vote and accept it as fact?

Yup. That's officially How It's Done in Science. Oh wait, your'e just making up shit arguments to ascribe to your opponents; my bad.

Quote:

The case for Evolution has not been static for 150 years and it is also not without controversy. Science has not determined the final answer on everything... if that was so we would not be researching new things today.

What exactly do you mean by 'controversy'? Do you mean people saying evolution can't happen because they interpret some religious book in a way that is incompatible with it? Or do you mean scientists disagreeing with one another as they work out the details? Do you understand that there's a huge difference between those two things? I'm guessing no, if you think science is supposed to have "determined the final answer on everything." That's just so much stupid.

Quote:

The argument for intelligent design is really the creationisms acknowledgment that science does have value and that we can move beyond the "just believe" approach.

No, Intelligent Design is a political strategy to get Creationism into the science classroom, and it failed. It is still fully a "just believe" approach, overlaid with cargo cult trappings of science.

Quote:

So Random Mutation.... is not random? its creative because physics removes all of the bad mutations?

Random mutation is random, selection somewhat less so. But you knew that already.

Quote:

Now if we observed these products with absolutely no knowledge of human existance, what facts would be used to determine that it was designed by an engineer and not evolved by random combinations of metal, silicon and plastic?

Can your random combination of materials reproduce itself? With random mutation, in an environment that would apply selective pressure? If not, evolutionary theory would have no more explanatory power for it than would any other accepted scientific theory that you might want to misapply.

Quote:

I'm not suggesting applying the scientific method to God but to nature just as an Evolutionist would.

An Evolutionist? ::rolleyes::

Quote:

Consider cancer, the product of random cell mutation... it is distructive not creative, yet you may say this is natural selection at work... yet cancer cases are increasing, not decreasing... so you would argue that over 1 mil years natural selection would succeed ... how do you test that once let alone in a repeatable way? Is that not faith that given enough time anything can happen?Yet we combat cancer with the study of each variant and design specific ways to eliminate it... Is the cure for cancer evolution? or intelligent design?

Oh god, where to begin. Cancer can be catastrophic for the individual, and if it weakened a species enough it could cause its extinction. Extinction is a very common evolutionary outcome, there's nothing in evolutionary theory that says a negative outcome has to become less common over time. Cancer cases increasing (and over what timeframe, 50 years?) does not indicate anything about Evolution one way or another. Also, human-generated cures for cancer are no more evolutionary than houses and cars.

Quote:

How would Monsanto defend their rights to their genetically engeneered seeds in court? Sure they bring out the patents, samples and lab research. Now if the judge rejects the existance of genetic engeneering technology and the legitimacy of the company... then how could it be proven?

What is your claim here, that a judge might declare that Monsanto isn't messing with genetic material in plants? And that's relevant to Evolution how, exactly?

Quote:

150 years later, questions do remain.

Sure, but there's real questions and disingenuous ones. I suggest you stop making up the latter.

So that is the time limit? 150 years and then we take a vote and accept it as fact?

Do you think 150 years is a reasonable amount of time to wait for an idea, ostensibly an idea based on what we can already see without requiring future technology, to prove its own worth? Evolution and Creationism have both had the last 150 years to make their cases against each other. I want to say "they started off on equal footing," but that's not entirely true since there was enormous social back-lashing against evolution from the start and it's actually had to work harder to convince regular people and scientists alike of its utility. Over the last 150 years evolution has time and again shown up Creationism (in all its different anti-evolution forms) whenever the two are competing to explain something. Evolution consistently works, Creationism consistently does not. For 150 years of intensive scientific study, involving absolutely everything biological from classifying plants to studying the molecules of inheritance. Nowhere has Creationism proven to have a superior, or even satisfactory, explanation. Nowhere has it generated new research like legitimate science does; asserting "Creation" or "Design" does not give you new ideas to test. Instead it acts as a brick wall for scientific inquiry. Once you appeal to it, you can go no further. That's the opposite of real science. Once you figure something out, it instantly illuminates a new set of questions, which generates more research, which generates new explanations, etc. etc. Science marches on, because it literally can't do anything else as long as there are things we don't yet know. ID has not budged at all for 20 years, and straight-up honest Creationism for 150. There have been no advances in Creationism despite a small, dedicated, highly motivated, and relatively well-funded body of supposed "researchers" supporting it. Why has evolution so ridiculously outstripped Creationism if Creationism is supposed to be at least as viable? It can't have been bias originally, because the bias was often the other way around; against Darwin's ideas. Natural Selection caught a fire in biology and started quickly picking up steam because it worked. Moreso when we had a workable model of inheritance. Creationism, despite is greater popular appeal, has failed to work. And it's failed to work for a very, very long time. As soon as we all stopped being satisfied with "God did it with magic, that settles it!" Creationism failed to work.

Quote:

The case for Evolution has not been static for 150 years and it is also not without controversy. Science has not determined the final answer on everything... if that was so we would not be researching new things today.

There is no controversy over whether evolution happens or whether all living things are the product of a natural process of evolution from ancestral forms. At least, there is no scientific controversy. This is not the same as saying we have everything perfectly worked out. But it is the case that Creationism has not shown any scientific merit for generations.

Quote:

The argument for intelligent design is really the creationisms acknowledgment that science does have value and that we can move beyond the "just believe" approach.

Except that it isn't moving beyond that. They reject the findings of science that they don't like not because they have facts to contradict those findings, but because they "just believe" them to be wrong. It's an argument from incredulity. That's exactly what all this "to complex to have evolved" stuff means. It doesn't matter if they throw sciency-sounding terminology at it, that's what all their arguments boil down to.

Quote:

Quote:

Random mutation is a generative, creative force. It creates greater genetic diversity. Selection is a process that culls what doesn't work and promotes what does work. It is not random, but determined by physical constraints. Just as pebbles in a river bed sort by size when the current flows a certain way. It's the same thing that happens when you sieve material through differently-sized screens. So evolution involves processes that are both creative and selective; it generates variety and sorts accordingly. All this happens without any intervention from us or any recognizable "designers." The system itself could be considered intelligent, but it doesn't require any mind to operate it. Just interactions between basic physics and chemistry that happen naturally.

So Random Mutation.... is not random?

Random mutation is random in that we cannot predict which mutations will happen when. Just as when you flip a coin you cannot say which face will turn up on any given flip. It's not random on the sense that you could suddenly find yourself walking sideways on the wall for no good reason, and then be hit in the face with a pie thrown by a wacky clown that then honks a horn and runs through a hole in the wall that he painted on there.

Quote:

its creative because physics removes all of the bad mutations?

No, it's creative because it creates new genetic variations that didn't exist before. It can sometimes even do this without eliminating the old version in an organism, for example if a gene is accidentally duplicated twice, and one copy remains the same while the new copy undergoes mutation into a new gene. This stuff really happens in nature. We have seen it happen in the lab, too.

Quote:

Now if we observed these products with absolutely no knowledge of human existance, what facts would be used to determine that it was designed by an engineer and not evolved by random combinations of metal, silicon and plastic?

If we had no knowledge of human existence we couldn't make a meaningful comparison in the first place, which is actually a strike against the "design" idea. We only know of human designers, and features in the natural world do not look like deliberate human design. They look like things that have been changed at random and repurposed instead of invented out of whole cloth. The fact that we know about humans is the only thing that lets us identify and differentiate human design from natural structures. To make this distinction we depend on what we know about humans and human design. Those are two things that IDists insist are not needed when discerning the hand of an "Intelligent Designer," in fact some say we cannot know anything about the Designer. If we can't know anything about this supposed Designer, then on what basis are they making the "design" inference? When finding a watch in an empty field, consider these things. We know from previous experience that watchmakers exist, we know why they make watches, we know something about how they make watches, some of us might even know a watchmaker personally or be watchmakers ourselves. None of that applies this supposed "Intelligent Designer." We also have a well-studied and documented tendency to see patterns in nature that are not there. We see shapes in clouds, faces in burned toast, reposing females in mountain ranges, and even thing we see mysterious tidings in the particular way goat guts are spilled. We know that these are all delusions, illusions, mistakes in judgment, and "looking too hard." So combined with our lack of knowledge about this alleged Designer (remember, this lack of knowledge comes at the insistence of IDists!) and our tendency to see patterns and intentions that aren't really there, what does your Design argument rest upon?

Quote:

I'm not suggesting applying the scientific method to God but to nature just as an Evolutionist would.

Trust me, you are not. You don't know how the scientific method works well enough to see this. What you are instead basing this on is a distorted version of science that Creationists have invented to legitimize their ideas, but they do no follow the scientific method. In fact, they actively seek to overturn it.

Quote:

Consider cancer, the product of random cell mutation... it is distructive not creative, yet you may say this is natural selection at work... yet cancer cases are increasing, not decreasing... so you would argue that over 1 mil years natural selection would succeed ... how do you test that once let alone in a repeatable way?

A) Actually, there are several cases of cancers "evolving" to become free-living organisms in their own right. Check out HeLa cells or Sticker's sarcoma. These are examples where cancerous cells from a person and a dog, respectively, have changed so much as to find life outside their original hosts, long dead. B) Despite those few exceptions, you're not looking at the "evolution" of cancer at the right scale. A cancerous population exists within a single patient, and has changed to out-compete normal tissues for resources. Considered from the cancer's point of view, this is an evolutionary success, right until the ecosystem (the patient) crashes and the cancer within them goes extinct. Extinction is also part of evolution once a population is no longer reproductively viable (and since almost all cancers need to reproduce inside the host's body using its metabolic processes, they become non-viable). This is how you look at cancer and evolution, not from the standpoint that cancer is a trait that should confer adaptive advantages to its host.

Quote:

Yet we combat cancer with the study of each variant and design specific ways to eliminate it... Is the cure for cancer evolution? or intelligent design?

A) Let me turn that around on you. Is cancer intelligent design?B) We can only hope to cure cancer by understanding its evolution within the patient. Cancer progression in each patient is an evolutionary process. This is part of the reason why treatments for cancer can become less effective over time; varieties of the cancer may exist within the patient that have developed resistance to the treatment, and when the non-resistant cancer cells are eliminated the path is open for the more-resistant forms to spread, multiply, and develop greater resistance. And remember, this all takes place within a single patient, not like most diseases where you need multiple hosts for resistance to develop and spread throughout the public at large.

Quote:

How would Monsanto defend their rights to their genetically engeneered seeds in court? Sure they bring out the patents, samples and lab research. Now if the judge rejects the existance of genetic engeneering technology and the legitimacy of the company... then how could it be proven?

Who rejects the existence of genetic engineering? In fact, the whole point of patent protection for GM organisms is that they don't arise in nature, through natural processes like evolution. If we saw it happen in the wild, that would probably be a good argument for ID. The fact that we don't, and that we have built up an entire industry around it not happening, lends more weight to the correctness of non-design evolutionary processes operating in the natural world. Remember, Behe et al. want to argue that genetic engineering of that type does go on in nature, and that they have found signs of it.

Yes, if designed to do so. Given that manufacturing processes are so automated is it really that far fetched of a concept to have non-biological robots making other robots... The basis of so many Sci-fi stories (The Matrix, Terminator...)

Quote:

...(and over what timeframe, 50 years?)

So you believe in Time. which ever side you choose you are putting faith in something that is bigger than you that you cannot observe the whole of. Put faith in a timeline of trillions of years or put faith in some supernatural designer.

Quote:

Also, human-generated cures for cancer are no more evolutionary than houses and cars.

exactly... which are all designed for a purpose.

Quote:

Quote:

How would Monsanto defend their rights to their genetically engeneered seeds in court? Sure they bring out the patents, samples and lab research. Now if the judge rejects the existance of genetic engeneering technology and the legitimacy of the company... then how could it be proven?

What is your claim here, that a judge might declare that Monsanto isn't messing with genetic material in plants? And that's relevant to Evolution how, exactly?

Quote:

The point here is that if an observer of a product (a seed) has no knowledge of the designer (Monsanto) or their capabilities (genetic engeneering) it would be possible to reach a conclusion that it is a product of an evolutionary process rather than genetic engeneering (Intelligent Design).

Quote:

Quote:

150 years later, questions do remain.

Sure, but there's real questions and disingenuous ones. I suggest you stop making up the latter.

disingenuous no... I respect your opinions and I don't blame you for thinking that I'm crazy and off the deep end.

It's insane that I can think that the complex and beautiful world around us was created by God in 6 days That we're all screw ups and deserve to be punished but God is willing to forgive us and build a new world called heaven where we can live foreverJust typing this out it seems completely nuts and beyond defendable. But for me it's far easier to believe that than it is to trust that in Time anything can happen.

It's insane that I can think that the complex and beautiful world around us was created by God in 6 days That we're all screw ups and deserve to be punished but God is willing to forgive us and build a new world called heaven where we can live foreverJust typing this out it seems completely nuts and beyond defendable. But for me it's far easier to believe that than it is to trust that in Time anything can happen.

It's fortunate, then, that your personal beliefs carry no scientific weight whatsoever. It might be personally comforting for me to believe that when I go to bed, magical space lizards will do the washing up while I'm asleep; and the failure of said magical space lizards to do the washing up is only evidence that I'm not believing hard enough.